541. Ontologies and dynamic systems
ontology
is the philosophy of what exists in the world, is about the ‘furniture of the
world’. What are the properties of
things that exist? ‘Things’ here can be anything: an object, an organism,
a community, a technical system, world trade. Ideally, there would be only one
ontology that covers everything. However, like any theory, ontology is not some
magical grasp of all truth that represents reality beyond our perception. It is
a device for ordering our perceptions (MacCumber, 2007), and there may be
different ontologies for different kinds of things.
According
to the dominant ontology, things have a boundary, an internal structure and
external interaction with other things. There can be a hierarchy of things,
with elements in a coherent system, that in turn is an element in a ‘higher
‘level’ system, such as organs in a body, or people in a community.
Systems
are subject to the law of increasing ‘entropy’, i.e. the dissipation of energy
and structure. A pan of hot water, when taken from the stove, will dissipate
its heat to its environment. An organism that no longer ingests energy in the
form of food will decay. Life is a fight against increasing entropy,
maintaining the distinction of internal structure.
Systems
are networked, with relations between the elements, called ‘nodes’. This is a
second ontology, of nodes in a network, which renders the boundaries of the
elements of a system permeable, although that was also implied, to some extent,
by the external interaction between things that affects internal structure. In
some treatments of this ontology, however, no identifiable or stable identity
of things is left: the node is entirely determined by its network positions.
In
the body those ‘ties’ between nodes are streams of blood, transporting oxygen
and food, hormones, or electrical impulses along neurons. In commuties they are
relations of trade, family, care, friendship, sex, fighting, organisation,
hierarchy, communication, contamination, hypes, mobs, voting. The connections between
‘nodes’ can yield complementarity, sustaining each other, maintaining a
trembling equilibrium in the system, with small deviations and repair , called
‘homeostasis’. But it can also propagate collapse. When one node collapses, for
whatever reason, that can burden or withhold support to a neighbouring node, and so on.
Such
positive feedback can cause collapse of
the entire system, as in the financial system in 1930 and 2008, and the
lockdown of society, in an attempt to stop the propagation of infection, as in
Covid-19. Such system collapse is studied in the ‘theory of dynamic systems’ (Holland, 1992; Bardi, 2017). Collapse of the
world economic system was studied by the ‘Club of Rome’, with its ‘Limits to
Growth’, in the 1980’s (Bardi, 2017).
Such
collapse is often faster than the growth of the system, which is called the
‘Seneca effect’, attributed to the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca (Bardi, 2017).
An easy way to explain this difference in speed of growth and collapse is that
growth is subject to ‘negative feedback’, due to increasing resistance to the
addition of something new, in ‘decreasing returns’ to the efforts involved, as
the system becomes more complex and resources and space for extension get
depleted. The decline, on the other hand, has positive feedback, in the
propagation of the demise of a node to neighbouring nodes, repeated in
increasing numbers.
A
third ontology is that of internal forces that adapt the internal structure of
things to changes in the environment, studied in the theory of ‘Complex
Adaptive Systems’ (CAS; Holland, 1992). Elements that contribute most to a
collective endeavour are reinforced, by the ‘attribution of merit’, and the
ones with low merit decline and disappear. The collective endeavor may be the
maintenance of homeostasis, or creation of a new one. This is how neuronal
networks in the brain develop (Edelman, 1987). Such evolutionary adaptation can
also apply to the ‘rules’, the connections between nodes. Some rules may arise
for trial randomly, as in in the form of ‘genetic algorithms’ that mimick the
random generation of new forms of life in the ‘crossover’ between chromosomes
in the sexual reproduction of animals. They may, when succesful, grow to
dominance.This dynamic ontology is redolent of previous ontologies of adaptive
force, such as Nietzsche’s ‘will to power’.
The
difference between the three ontologies is not necessarily limitative to any of
them. I already indicated how the node ontology can be added to the dominant
ontology, with permeable boundaries to things. Adaptive force also may be added,
in a CAS.
How
about current society? Is there a stable homeostasis? Is it resilient to
deviations? If not, can the system be adaptive? Bardi (2017) compared the
decreasing returns to scale of growth, in burgeoning complexity, piling up
regulations, lifting bureaucracy to new heights, to the notion of entropy. I am
not sure that is valid. Another notion, connected perhaps is that of EROI,
Energy Return On Investment, i.e. the energy one gets out of a system minus the
energy one has to put in. As resources get depleted and an increasingly complex
system requires more and more energy to press out an addition. When EROI becomes
negative, the sysem is no longer viable.
As
past homeostasis is breaking down, in a rising dominance of self-interest over
civility, yielding an atomisation in polarised lumps and bumps of people that no
longer communicate with each other, there seems to be an increasing threat to
democracy, and perhaps autocracy is the only way to restore homeostasis, in imposing
regulation, reducing freedom, to ensure homeostasis. Or can democracy survive in some form of controlled anarchy? I have
to further think this out.
Bardi, U. 2017, The Seneca effect,
Springer.
Edelman,
Gerald M. 1987, Neural Darwinism: The
theory of neuronal group selection, New York: Basic Books.
Holland, J.H. 1992, ‘Complex Adaptive
Systems’, Daedalus, 121/1, 17-30.
MacCumber,
J. 2007, Reshaping Reason, Toward a new philosophy, Bloomington IN:
Indiana University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment